Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):If you want to use "the MVP to go to the player who most contributed to his team's success", shouldn't a team's success play into the equation?

Tigers-playing on
Angels-playing golf

Seems simple to me.

Angels won more games. They were more successful, just didn't make the playoffs because their division was better.

Playoffs are an indicator of success.

Does anyone, outside of me, recall the strike season when the team with the best overall record didn't make the playoffs?

You're splitting hairs. The team that won more games is more successful. That the Angels didn't make the playoffs and the Tigers did is a function of the division make up, not the quality of the teams. Should Cabrera get the MVP because the Rangers and A's were better than the White Sox?

And anyway, the MVP should go tot he best player in the league, not the best player on a playoff team. Especially when one guy is obviously head and shoulders about the rest.

Posted by AlCheez on 10/2/2012 1:26:00 PM (view original):I meant if I'm building a team, not if I get to put one of them on the Phillies.

If I'm building a team, I put Cabrera at 1B/DH so he stands less of a chance of getting hit in the face.

Right, but again, we're talking about evaluating what actually happened. You're putting together a team, you get your choice of Trout's sesaon or Cabrera's season.

All of this being said, I'm really fine with either of these guys winning the award, particularly if Cabrera hangs on for the Triple Crown. I think in the literal sense of the word, Trout had the more valuable season, but to me, the MVP is really more about who was the defining player for the league that year, the one for whom the season will best be remembered (in terms of actual performance, of course, not scandals or whatever.)

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):If you want to use "the MVP to go to the player who most contributed to his team's success", shouldn't a team's success play into the equation?

Tigers-playing on
Angels-playing golf

Seems simple to me.

Angels won more games. They were more successful, just didn't make the playoffs because their division was better.

Playoffs are an indicator of success.

Does anyone, outside of me, recall the strike season when the team with the best overall record didn't make the playoffs?

You're splitting hairs. The team that won more games is more successful. That the Angels didn't make the playoffs and the Tigers did is a function of the division make up, not the quality of the teams. Should Cabrera get the MVP because the Rangers and A's were better than the White Sox?

And anyway, the MVP should go tot he best player in the league, not the best player on a playoff team. Especially when one guy is obviously head and shoulders about the rest.

So playoff appearance isn't more "successful" than regular season wins? Why bother with playoffs?

And, for the record, the ONLY reason this is a discussion is because neither pick is "obvious" nor is one guy "head and shoulders" above the rest.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2012 1:34:00 PM (view original):
No out is productive. Some outs are slightly less ****** than other outs.

Quote post by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 1:37:00 PM:

I think it was Baltimore about 3 days ago.

Bunt moved runners to 2nd/3rd. Next batter tied the game with a single. Baltimore won in extra innings.

****** out?

I guess I should qualify my statement, I wasn't talking about sacrifices. I doubt Cabrera was called on to bunt ever this season. He did hit into 27,482 double plays though, which are WAAAAAYYYY worse than strikeouts (and other non-double play outs).

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):If you want to use "the MVP to go to the player who most contributed to his team's success", shouldn't a team's success play into the equation?

Tigers-playing on
Angels-playing golf

Seems simple to me.

Angels won more games. They were more successful, just didn't make the playoffs because their division was better.

Playoffs are an indicator of success.

Does anyone, outside of me, recall the strike season when the team with the best overall record didn't make the playoffs?

You're splitting hairs. The team that won more games is more successful. That the Angels didn't make the playoffs and the Tigers did is a function of the division make up, not the quality of the teams. Should Cabrera get the MVP because the Rangers and A's were better than the White Sox?

And anyway, the MVP should go tot he best player in the league, not the best player on a playoff team. Especially when one guy is obviously head and shoulders about the rest.

So playoff appearance isn't more "successful" than regular season wins? Why bother with playoffs?

And, for the record, the ONLY reason this is a discussion is because neither pick is "obvious" nor is one guy "head and shoulders" above the rest.

Trout is clearly head and shoulders above Cabrera. It really isn't close.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):If you want to use "the MVP to go to the player who most contributed to his team's success", shouldn't a team's success play into the equation?

Tigers-playing on
Angels-playing golf

Seems simple to me.

Angels won more games. They were more successful, just didn't make the playoffs because their division was better.

Playoffs are an indicator of success.

Does anyone, outside of me, recall the strike season when the team with the best overall record didn't make the playoffs?

You're splitting hairs. The team that won more games is more successful. That the Angels didn't make the playoffs and the Tigers did is a function of the division make up, not the quality of the teams. Should Cabrera get the MVP because the Rangers and A's were better than the White Sox?

And anyway, the MVP should go tot he best player in the league, not the best player on a playoff team. Especially when one guy is obviously head and shoulders about the rest.

So playoff appearance isn't more "successful" than regular season wins? Why bother with playoffs?

And, for the record, the ONLY reason this is a discussion is because neither pick is "obvious" nor is one guy "head and shoulders" above the rest.

Trout is clearly head and shoulders above Cabrera. It really isn't close.

You clearly don't understand baseball if you think "head and shoulders" should be in the discussion.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2012 1:49:00 PM (view original):Well, they are pretty close offensively (Trout actually has a higher OPS+) and Trout demolishes Cabrera in value on base and in the field. So...I don't see how Cabrera is even in the discussion.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2012 1:49:00 PM (view original):Well, they are pretty close offensively (Trout actually has a higher OPS+) and Trout demolishes Cabrera in value on base and in the field. So...I don't see how Cabrera is even in the discussion.